Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC Climategate rename policy query

As by no stretch of the imagination could it be said that there is a consensus here to support the move, I'm closing this proposal as unsuccessful and stale. AGK 19:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC: Rename article?

{{rfctag}}

It is proposed that the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" be renamed "Climategate". Is this proposed rename supported or contradicted by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? What are the risks and benefits of such a rename? mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

As this is what all the sources call it [1] In the past month Climategate has been used 566 times in the media [2] It gets 275 hits on google scholar [3] and there are 46 books about it [4]

• WP:V verifiability, not truth therefore arguments saying those involved were cleared and as such the -Gate should not be used is wrong.
• WP:UCN Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. And there is the policy based reason for title change mark nutley (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Climategate" fails WP:LABEL because "-gate" suffix suggests a scandal, and no aspect of this incident is (or has been) described as a scandal. "Climategate" fails Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming because it supports a non-neutral neologism. "Climategate" already redirects here. Current title is descriptive. No need for change. Also, no need for this RfC, seeing as this has already been decided not less than eleventy-billion times in the 8 months since the hacking incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Even with the narrowest possible search to discover whether or not this has been described as a scandal, i.e. a google search for "Climategate scandal" as an exact phrase, I find 61,000 hits in Google, and 64 results in Google news, including such esteemed sources as the Los Angeles Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post, Telegraph (UK), etc. It is absolutely implausible to say that no aspect of this incident is or has been described as a scandal. It is a scandal, if anything ever was. (That is not to say that I support the name change to this article, just to say that this particular argument is not even remotely persuasive.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:RM (rather than WP:RfC) the correct way to get this discussed, as per the numerous previous similar discussions? is this some kind of forum shopping? --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. StuartH (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC`s are an integral part of dispute resolution, it is hardly forum shopping mark nutley (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse "dispute resolution" with "wikilawyering". This is basically vexatious litigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't confuse self-published pamphlets as "books". Google isn't very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff in this respect. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: "...no aspect of this incident is (or has been) described as a scandal" is untrue. Several aspects have been and are being widely described as a scandal. Please strike. --Yopienso (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Please explain which aspect of this incident has been described as a "scandal" by a legitimate source. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the original Watergate could be called a scandal, it doesn't immediately follow that any other -gate suffix implies scandal. Ironically, WP has an article on the term, List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, but I think that article should be revisited. A quick glance will show that not all are called scandals. A better description might be "controversy" While some rise to the level of scandal, many do not, so the inference is false.--SPhilbrickT 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Clicking through the links on the "-gate" list, an overwhelming majority are not actually used as titles, because WP:LABEL makes it clear that "-gate" is contentious and should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." "Climategate" is consistent with the other entries there -- we don't use the pejorative title ourselves, but we refer to its use by others. StuartH (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose - WP:WASTEOFTIME applies. Pointless troublemaking William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Since 2009, a requested move for this article has taken place at least four times: 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (failed) 17 February, 2010 (failed) 17 March, 2010 (successful) Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

List of reliable sources which use the term "Climategate"

• Support As an editor who previously opposed the name 'Climategate' every single time it's come up, I now officially change my position. Climategate is clearly the most commonly used name in English by reliable sources including BBC News,[5] The Guardian, [6] Christian Science Monitor, [7] CNN,[8] Der Spiegel,[9] ABC News,[10] CBS News, [11] New Scientist,[12] Nature,[13] etc. For a list of reliable sources calling this Climategate, please expand the following section:

As for arguments that you can't have an article title that expresses a POV, this is incorrect. Proper names for events which incorporate POV terms (such as Reign of Terror, Corrupt bargain, Bataan Death March, etc.) are legitimate article titles because these are the most common names used by reliable sources. For a list of article titles which express a POV, please see this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's a great argument against changing the name. All article titles are POV, but are based on the most neutral POV we can create, often times by combining multiple POV, and this involves creating article titles that are inclusive and represent the entire subject. Non-netural POV titles are often too narrow, hence one of the major problems (one of many) with a title like "Climategate". That's one reason why Holocaust revisionism redirects to Holocaust denial, and why Barack Obama birthplace controversy redirects to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. There's a big picture and "Climategate" doesn't begin to even incorporate every aspect of it. Since the CRU and the email are the central aspects of the dispute, an article title using those terms meets our neutrality policy without taking the POV of a small fringe element composed of vocal climate denialists who have named the topic "Climategate" solely to push their POV before the investigation was even begun. We now know there was no such scandal, and that some of the major claims made by this group have been retracted. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your arguments are more in support of "Climategate" than opposed. Had the breach revealed innocuous emails, there still would be a police investigation, but it wouldn't have been a noteworthy event. The only thing that turns the minor incident into a controversy is the conduct alleged, and subsequently discussed by the media. We didn't have multiple investigations to figure how who did the breach, we had multiple investigations to discuss the contents. It is so much more than CRU and an email breach. There's a reason we call it World War One and not the Gavrilo Princip incident.--SPhilbrickT 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your own comments support the current title. You say that it was the breach of the CRU's servers which revealed the contents of the emails. The title covers that. You go on to claim that there is more to it than that, which justifies the use of the word "controversy". So, the current title meets your requirements. However, you have failed to explain how the term "Climategate" is a better title. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his comments fall right in line with Wikipedia policy ("True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental."), explained in my comments below. GregJackP Boomer! 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How does that address my comment? Please don't reply with random replies picked out of Tristan Tzara's hat. I'll ask again: How is "Climategate" a better title? By default, you are arguing that "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" is an opinion of some kind, whereas "Climategate" is less of one. That makes sense, how?? Viriditas (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote, from Jimbo (abet with a "weak oppose" because he did not want to fight about it) - "Here is my view: Climategate is obviously the correct title. It is the overwhelming choice used by virtually all media. It is an accurate, non-POV-pushing description of the event, because the event was in fact a scandal." The first quote was straight out of Wikipedia policy, which states at Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. You either follow WP policy or you don't, but as Jimbo said, Climategate is the correct title for the article. GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. Not this nonsense again? It's already been discussed to death, as Viriditas has pointed out above. The current name is a compromise. Policy on POV names has not changed ("encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality"). The "Climategate" moniker is the same as it ever was - a POV nickname meant to impute wrongdoing and scandal. Using such a POV nickname while the controversy was still ongoing would have been grossly inappropriate. Using it now that the reports are in and the principals have been cleared of wrongdoing would be insane. We are not in the business of rewriting history. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV, Article Naming, which states: Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. Using the current title and looking for GNews/GScholar/GBooks hits show zero hits, while the popular name of "Climategate" showed over 4,100 GNews hits, over 200 GScholar hits, and 29 GBooks hits, clearly showing that Climategate is used by a consensus of the sources. The argument that it cannot be named Climategate is not correct - there are plenty of examples of popular scandal names being used in Wikipedia per the above policy. Second, the argument that the principals have been cleared of wrong-doing has nothing to do with the naming of the article, except to put a POV spin on the title. The policy is clear that the title used by a consensus of the sources, not a consensus of the editors, the commonly used phrase is used. Period. Anything else is POV. GregJackP Boomer! 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Even if your position is that the term "Climategate is judgmental and POV, policy requires the use of the common name used by a consensus of the sources, which is overwhelmingly "Climategate" - I have found no source that titles it the way it is currently listed. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "True neutrality means..." That statement was added to the Article titles policy on 20 May 2010 by Blueboar.[14] Clearly, article titles is not a stable policy. The current article we are discussing was created at 00:20, 22 November 2009 by User:Doize77. This is what Wikipedia:Article titles looked like on 26 November 2009:[15] Notice how there is nothing about "Neutrality and article titles", which was added later on 28 March 2010 by Blueboar again, with the edit summary, "Incorporating what is said at WP:NPOV".[16] Please also note that Blueboar added this to the policy right after being involved in a contentious discussion about the term Climategate several days previously. However, looking at WP:NPOV we see completely different wording at the time of 22 November.[17] Somebody has been playing games with the NPOV and the article title policies. When this article was created, the NPOV policy said the following (emphasis mine):

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[3] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[4] Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used; see also WP:Naming conventions (common names).

That's a huge difference from what it says now and what article titles has been changed to say as a result of this debate. The NPOV has been changed to remove "generally" and has since been radically changed from its former state, and the article titles policy has also been changed, in this case, by an editor who wanted to rename this article. Something isn't right here. Viriditas (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. I also clearly remember "Climategate" being ruled out because the naming conventions explicitly ruled out "-gate" suffixes except in historical cases, which has also been changed. If it's the case that these changes have been made by involved editors, it's worrying. StuartH (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In Blueboar's defense, there is no evidence he has done anything wrong but it looks somewhat fishy. I first contacted him on his talk page on 18 March about his expressed support for the term, "Climategate", and here we see him changing the article titles policy on 20 March and then on 28 March, in a way that could be construed to support the term. I'm left wondering about the stability of a policy like this and the impact of sudden changes on discussions when involved editors are making the changes. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind, but the changes in the NPOV and article titles policy appear to have occurred in response to this topic. I can say that fairly confidently in regards to the latter policy, but I haven't had time to investigate the former. Perhaps somebody can do this. Viriditas (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting history lesson. However, the current policy is clear. Perhaps one should look at the policy talkpage and note that the new wording was the consensus of the community, arrived at after several months of discussion. If the policy is wrong, feel free to propose that it be changed, but the old policy is not really germane to this discussion. BTW, the discussion on changing the policy started in January 2010, well before the policy was actually changed, and to indicate that the change was in response to the Climategate naming is clearly mis-stating the policy change as it was in process well before then. GregJackP Boomer! 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I wish to make no implication of any wrongdoing, but the discussions of these policies seems to have spread around a few places. I found Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Erachima, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Wikipedia talk:Article titles debate closure and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 78#Alternative article names --Nigelj (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Despite the verylonglistofarticles (which were not hand-reviewed - they are the result of pro-googling), sources have not reached consensus that Climategate is the name for the events described in this article. I have three serious problems - first, in the verylonglistofgoogles, the vast majority use "Climategate", the scare-quotes used to connotate that it's not being adopted by that media outlet in question. Compare - [18][19], [20] - no scare quotes to [21], [22], [23] ... scare quotes abound. Secondly, how many times do we need to do the same thing - from Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Considering_title_changes - "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Thirdly - can we please let the ArbCom case finish? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels like we are Waiting for GodotArbcom?--SPhilbrickT 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Waiting for the Barbarians ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Waiting? They're already here... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what would we do without barbarians? They are some kind of solution at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT per M. Nutley et al. Past due to retire this clumsy name. Even the NY Times now calls it Climategate -- without scare quotes, even. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support name change to "Climategate" per naming conventions, per nom and per GregJackP Minor4th 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose rename as current name was product of compromise.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - just to make clear. GregJackP Boomer! 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - current name was a good-faith attempt at compromise. Partisan branding should only be used when a consensus of historical sources use the name. No scholarly historical sources exist on this yet. So what's the rush to embrace POV branding? Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose With such a loaded and non-neutral term, the argument needs to be convincing. The current title is reasonable, and the result of a good-faith effort to achieve a compromise. Resuming the battleground mentality so soon after the compromise serves no-one, and there is no need for "climategate". There also appears to be some confusion over recent policy changes on this issue, and it should really be a Requested Moves, not a RfC. StuartH (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget the outcome of the last discussion: "More neutral title; a compromise between "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate" [24]. This discussion is not about NPOV at all - it's about one POV-faction attempting to overturn the results of that carefully crafted, extensively discussed compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Yes, an IP but I would like to remind folks Jimbo also gave his support.91.153.115.15 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo supported the current title and !voted for it in the last discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thnk you are distorting the record, Chris. Link, please? Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[25], WP:AGF --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. He supported the current title as a reasonable compromise given the editors active at the time, but thought "Climategate" more appropriate. In his words: "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate."--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a request on Jimbo's talk page for him to comment here, so we don't have to guess what his opinion is. GregJackP Boomer! 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I am putting my !vote here to respond to the above thread. Here is my view: Climategate is obviously the correct title. It is the overwhelming choice used by virtually all media. It is an accurate, non-POV-pushing description of the event, because the event was in fact a scandal. (As in most all scandals, there are perspectives on the scandal and who was right or wrong, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a scandal.) There have been offered absolutely no non-POV pushing arguments put forward against the name - it is opposed vigorously by those who, like me, think that most of the people who made hay out of this are in the wrong scientifically and ethically. You don't have to be a climate change denier in order to recognize that this was a scandal. Having said all of that, the current title is a compromise hammered out with much difficulty. In 10 years we may look back and be embarrassed that we got this wrong for as long as we did, because in 10 years, this article will be named "Climategate" as all historical sources will converge to that name, whether people like it or not. But as for today, it just isn't worth fighting about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree "-gate" implies "scandal" but I think only in the sense that some wrong conduct has been found. There seems to have been very little wrong conduct found in the official inquiries. We may disagree with the official inquiries, but the reliable sources covering this put a lot of stock in them, and so they keep the scare quotes around the name when they use it, even now. It is the only one-word name for this, but that probably explains why it's used in headlines (one-word names are extremely useful to headline writers). I think NPOV -- and especially BLP -- demands we not call it a scandal because there have been no findings of gross wrongdoing. This is why this issue has been so contentious for so long on these pages. If we use "-gate" we imply any of the definitions of "scandal" (see Merriam-Webster's definition here [26]). That's how readers will interpret that name. We can't do it without the reliable sources doing it first (without scare quotes). We're not there yet, and it now looks like we won't be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, so would you support a change to 'Climategate' controversy? If your objection is that reliable sources are using the scare quotes, doesn't it neatly resolve everyone's issues with the current title?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't really resolve my issue. In my experience, scare quotes are generally used to imply some contempt towards a overwrought label, or at the least, some dubiousness -- but very often to imply that the name is not settled. Seems like labeling should be drawn more from scholarly sources than the-usually-more-sensationalist popular media sources. However, if this is the way that Wikipedia is meant to work, by seizing upon only-months-old media neologisms, then I may just have held some strange notions. BigK HeX (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I respect your opinion, but the applicable policy states: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as

evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." (from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming) Policy is clear-cut, and your comments above seem to be in line with this policy, rather than the "weak oppose" you register as your !vote. Would you consider changing to "support"? GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be preferable to straight "Climategate", but I'm still unsure about whether it's better than the current title, and to keep playing musical chairs with the title isn't the most productive way to improve the article (it would be even worse with "'Climategate' controversy" because I can guarantee that straight "Climategate" will be pushed within months). Is there much of a precedent to having quotation marks in the title itself? I'm not sure it's as good a fit for an encyclopedia article title as a news or opinion piece. Historical sources would be preferable (and for "-gate" suffixes, last time this came up it was pointed out that they were required at the time), but there are obviously not going to be many of those right now. StuartH (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guettarda, StuartH, Jimbo, etc. How many times are we going to !vote on this? Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Until common sense prevails? <G>. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "Climategate" is only used in the media by global warming deniers who represent a fringe view of climate science. When the term is used in mainstream media it is always in scare quotes, which means the mainstream does not accept the term. TFD (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the FT the Climategate e-mails or the Sydney Morning Herald [27] or the Guardian Climategate emails report due today Yes these are not MSM are they mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

e/c::Laughably false assertions --unless you count the NY Times as "deniers." And please note their non-use of "scare quotes". Please don't clutter the discussion with such easily-refuted nonsense. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please strike your comment, TFD, as it 6-mos. outdated. It is not true today and should not be on this page. --Yopienso (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The term is not used (without scare quotes) by serious commentators. I would support a section on the coining and usage of the term (it was in use at least a year before these emails were hacked), when reliable secondary sources become available on that sub-topic. Without that, it is no more use in an encyclopedia than Swifthack. --Nigelj (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, please see my and Mark's cmts immediately above. Your assertion "not used (without scare quotes) by serious commentators" is demonstrably untrue. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The following media outlets have used Climategate in headlines without scare quotes and without being used by "deniers":

The Telegraph, the Atlantic, CBS News, the Mail Online, Fox News, New Scientist, the Los Angeles Times, the Register, the Irish Times, the Detroit News, UPI, etc. There are many more. GregJackP Boomer! 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that headlines are not written by the journalists or commentators themselves, and are often designed for shock-value, don't you? Apart from that, I should have said 'rarely' so that this tag-team wouldn't get so excited as soon as they found an exception somewhere on earth. Ah well. My !vote stands. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: I think you should take another look at those articles posted by GregJackP. By my count 10 out of 11 of those articles use the name "Climategate" in the article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per arguments listed above. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia's job is to describe controversy as neutrally as possible, not participate in it. The current name was a reasonable compromise, and is more neutral than both the original name and the proposed alternative. So long as the article explains the term "Climategate" has been widely used to describe the incident, that seems sufficient. DGaw (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

^^^^ GW/CC editors pick teams and draw bright lines around existing factions/cabals/cadres/confluences ... When a few more editors show up and weigh in, we can have a scrimmage. I am not promoting WP:BATTLEFIELD, I just think it is funny how clearly expressed it is in this particular !vote :D Minor4th 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The list of references posted by A Quest for Knowledge shows that "Climategate" is the name used most often in the media for this story. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The most widely used term for this incident is Climategate. It has largely lost its pejorative sense. Please see my comment of 08:47, 26 July 2010. --Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Perennial caterwauling by agenda-driven interests. The current title itself is actually the product of an earlier compromise, so it smacks of bad-faith for one side to renege on that and push for their super-preferred version anew. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For Hipocrite's reasons, which have been my reasons in the past. I haven't found any reason to change my mind. Reliable sources are still, primarily (it seems), putting "Climategate" in scare quotes when they use it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It is worth keeping the current title purely on the basis of compromise (since Climategate redirects here, repeated arguments about the "correct" title are simply not worth the effort). However, my main reason for opposing a rename is that it will be ten or more years before historians are able to accurately record this incident. Naturally a news outlet wants a catchy title with a hint of scandal, but in this kind of area, Wikipedia should be about verified science, and what is verified here is that there is a controversy about Climatic Research Unit emails. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title, while clunky, is both descriptive and somewhat neutral. The proposed title is, in my opinion, a propaganda term intended to push a particular point of view, and is otherwise relatively empty of meaning. Cardamon (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

• From RfC: I'm reluctant to throw my hat in the ring in the climategate area again, but I would support the rename for the reasons GregJackP listed (re Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, The policy is clear that the title used by a consensus of the sources, not a consensus of the editors, the commonly used phrase is used.). Unfortunately, I think all the usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT folks will come out and rattle off thirty policies, some of which apply, some of which don't, then link everyone the the hundreds of archived discussions about this same renaming proposal to the point where the discussion devolves into an unreadable mess of indents and (edit conflict) notes. So to that point, I think SPhilbrick'sHipocrite's_{(my apologies)} idea of waiting for ArbCom might be worth seriously considering. Otherwise, I support the move, and think it's well-reasoned. (Although googleing "climategate" returns the Climatic Research Unit email controversy page which is always a source of a good laugh)

P.S. In the case the page is moved, I think the lede should be changed to Climategate, (formerly dubbed Climatic Research Unit email controversy by Wikipedia) ;-) jheiv ^{talk contribs} 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Saw this in the RFC. "Climategate" is the name given by the right. The current title, while awkward, is neutral. Figureofnine (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this title is correct, follows our naming convention, and neutral. "Climategate" is sensationalist tabloid POV, and untrue based on all the findings. Verbal chat 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how that meets Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for neutrality, per WP:LABEL and per points raised by User:Scjessey. BigK HeX (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how that meets Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what "editors' opinions" are being "imposed"? Thanks, BigK HeX (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually .... further, can you explain the justification for your invocation of that guide, which is applicable "When a subject or topic has a single common name," given a fairly dubious case regarding "Climategate" being representative of a large proportion of the literature -- a case made even more difficult given the WP:NOTNEO policy. BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to explain. Here is the section in full to which GregJackP refers:

When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

We established in Archive 35 that we could find no MSM that did not use the term "Climategate" in its various spellings wrt capitals and hyphen, and wrt to "scare quotes." That's called a single common name in English MSM RS. (We even found it in German, Spanish, and in the English version of Pravda, which said, "...what everyone is calling ‘Climategate’ -- a major scandal involving leaked emails..." (These are new links I've just looked up.) Clearly the incident is globally known as "Climategate."

The editors' opinion being imposed on the title of this article is that we cannot use a word that began as a perjorative. This is contrary to our policy. (In AGF, I'm willing to believe they believe it is still entirely perjorative. This, however, is willful ignorance, given the many, many references supplied here.)

Wrt to WP:NOTNEO policy, it states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." There are endless treatments in secondary sources. --Yopienso (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what Yopienso said. All of the sources call it Climategate, and Wikipedia policy requires us to use that same term. GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "All of the sources call it Climategate"

That certainly is not the case. Not even most of the sources available at this point discussing the controversy use "Climategate" as headline reference. BigK HeX (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like they do, even Nature does The Bering Sea Project: Thoughts on Climategate mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

lol ... "even Nature! _{(in a blog) ... (and with scare quotes, too)}" BigK HeX (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you see scare quotes in the text linked above? No you don`t. And you`ll find a blog on nature is a perfectly reliable source, o and while your over there so a searchm see if it pops up a few times :) mark nutley (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... no scare quotes?? Quoting from your source:

During the last couple of days I asked the principal investigators on board what they thought of

“ Climategate ”

Did you even bother to read your own supposed "evidence"? In any case, if you guys want to build the case, then it seems like that should have been the RFC pursued first --- although if it must be done as a sub-branch of this RfC, please find a way to compartmentalize the arguments. But without the supporting editors having reasonably established such a case, the move request here to a POV-loaded neologism is clearly doomed. BigK HeX (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

{Edit clonflict} You will note Nature News, as much under Nature's editorial control as its blog, avoided the term in December, but as early as February were using it not only in the headline but in the body, twice in scare quotes and once without. The Bering Sea blog report published July 20 is featured on this page, and there is a tab to access the Journal. --Yopienso (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So what are they calling it? Because the only hits I get are with "Climategate" as the title, whether it be through Google or LexisNews (which has over 800 hits with Climategate). There are zero using the current title. GregJackP Boomer! 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me for some other "common name." I said that your suggested "common name" is doubtful; I did not say that I had an alternative one to suggest. Personally, I doubt there is one, and so find a WP:NPOV title just fine for now. There is no deadline, and if it seems that a (non-neological) common name is shaking out in the future, we can discuss it far more authoritatively then without corcern for recentism. BigK HeX (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, for the same reason as that we use artist names and not real names when naming articles of pop singers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support After looking at the usage even by those who support AGW it is clear the term has pervaded all groups. The common name has, indeed, shaken out. Collect (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Repeated RfC's on this debate have done nothing but rope in everyone from never-to-be-heard-from-again editors to Jimbo. The amount of time and energy wasted on it is staggering. It is a matter which can only ever be resolved (and even then only briefly) by arbitration which wades through all the prattle before issuing, with some authority, a final decision based on policy, precedent, and analysis.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration doesn't decide things like page naming. You're quite right that the amount of time wasted on this issue is staggering, and that has been entirely the fault of the irreconcilable POV-pushers who have repeatedly brought this up and reject any compromise. The current title was agreed as a compromise to put this issue to bed. Now it's been raked up again by those who don't want any compromise. This is bad-faith editing, quite simply. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree partially with ChrisO. The amount of time spent on this issue is staggering. However, I don't think it has all been wasted. The search for facts to bolster arguments and the review of policies relevant to the question have been enlightening. I do agree with the main point—I don't see ArbCom addressing this issue.--SPhilbrickT 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Current title is apparently a compromise which had strong consensus a mere four months ago. Seems good enough reason to keep it, even if one side were completely in the right. Tsumetai (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. (I've been following the onwiki controversy, but I have never edited pages on the subject, so I consider myself uninvolved, and am venturing in here in response to the RfC.) Both titles, and particularly the "Gate" one, pass WP:V and WP:RS. However, I agree with the criticisms that the "Gate" version raises problems with WP:NPOV, and, I think, even WP:BLP. Making this name change would be like moving Estate tax in the United States to Death tax. Yes, "Climategate" has moved into ubiquitous usage, but it is still a political talking point. Furthermore, the "-gate" suffix is widely understood to mean more than, simply, "scandal", despite the mistaken claims throughout this talk that the fact that there has been a scandal justifies the title change. Yes, there has clearly been a scandal of sorts, but Watergate was one in which parties to the scandal were in some cases convicted of major felonies and sentenced to prison, and in one case ousted from the US Presidency. In contrast, "Climategate" (except perhaps in its most extreme POVs) in no way implies felony by any of its participants. There really are BLP issues if Wikipedia implies that the involved persons were morally equivalent to the Watergate perpetrators. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise by Jimbo [["Climategate" controversy]]

Jimbo has suggested above that perhaps "Climategate" Controversy would be suitable, any thoughts on this?

• Support mark nutley (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reject Jimbo did not say this. Hipocrite (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Further, now that he has said it, Oppose. It is disruptive to lose, try again, lose, try again, lose, try again, lose, try again, lose, and then immediately try again. I reiterate - the current title is fine. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things, Mark. ChrisO (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ChrisO, I'm aking you to behave more civilly in this discussion. I absolutely did suggest that 'Climategate' controversy should be considered. There is generally universal agreement that all media is using the word Climategate to describe this incident, but also noted that they generally use it in scare quotes. My proposal seeks to satisfy those who think we shouldn't endorse the title, and those who point out that it is by far, and without question, what the incident is called worldwide.
  • I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me or with others, but rudely calling 'bollocks' in a non-factual manner is not appropriate. You have additionally claimed, point blank, that "This discussion is not about NPOV at all", referring to your opponents as a POV-pushing faction. The problem is, that, too, simply doesn't fit the facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes he did Ok, so would you support a change to 'Climategate' controversy? If your objection is that reliable sources are using the scare quotes, doesn't it neatly resolve everyone's issues with the current title?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC) care to rephrase your statement? mark nutley (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand, Jimbo - you think it would be "suitable" for this article to be the only use of "scare quotes," throughout the entire encyclopedia - or are you saying there are other articles that use "scare quotes?" If there are, what articles are they? Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I have no idea if other articles use them or not. We have articles with non-English letters in the title, see Stanisław Lem and we have many articles with punctuation in the title. If the correct name of this incident, as many have argued, is 'Climategate' controversy (including scare quotes) then that's a powerful argument for using it as the title of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, as our own article on scare quotes points out, "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." They're simply not appropriate for an article title and I can't think of a single other example of any other article on Wikipedia which uses them. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I see I was mistaken about you not making this proposal - I had missed your earlier comment. Apologies to Marknutley for wrongly suggesting that he had invented it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - guys, it would help if you actually read the comments. MN directly quoted Jimbo, from here. Jimbo also said that "Climategate is obviously the correct title. It is the overwhelming choice used by virtually all media. It is an accurate, non-POV-pushing description of the event, because the event was in fact a scandal." GregJackP Boomer! 12:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The best objection to the use of "Climategate" in the title, despite it being by far the most commonly used name by all kinds of media, left, right, and center, across multiple languages, is that those media use it most often in scare quotes. This proposal is designed to acknowledge the reality of what this event is called in the media, while at the same time not endorsing the name in a POV way. We are merely following the sources with this name, rather than making up our own unique title in complete contravention of all Wikipedia tradition and norms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Could you link another article with "scare quotes" in the title? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Look on the content page. There is page after page of article titles and redirects with double and single quote marks. GregJackP Boomer! 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Link one article that uses scare-quotes. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass. It is within policy and I've pointed you to plenty of examples. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed every one of your comments on this page. None of them link to a single article that uses "scare quotes." I respect your right to dodge my question, but you must be aware that you are, in fact, dodging it. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps we're failing to communicate. I am not refering to an external article, but to a wikipedia article that uses scare quotes in the title. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you probably just don't understand my above comment about the content page. Look here, here, here, etc. The Wikipedia contents page. You might also consider striking your comment that Jimbo had not said that - it shows a lack of good faith in MN's post. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't understand your comment about the content page - I didn't even know that existed. Thanks. Could you point out which of those you think is a scare quote? I'm having a hard time finding even one. Most are quotations, redirects and proper-names. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange you can`t find one, the first i saw is this "300" mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, mark, that's the proper name of a pinball machine - not a use of scare quotes - ""300" (the exact machine name includes the quotation marks) is a pinball machine produced by Gottlieb with a bowling theme." Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well is there a policy against it? And please fix your comment above which implys i lied thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose still fails WP:WASTEOFTIME, and appeal to spurious authority is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Jimbo and my arguments presented here.[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing wrong with the current title. Tsumetai (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. There's little point in proposing a compromise if it isn't going to stick. Don't forget the current title was a compromise -- if we change it to "'Climategate' controversy" we'll be back arguing about a move to "Climategate" in weeks to months anyway. "'Climategate' controversy" is preferable to "Climategate", but so is the current title. I don't think quotation marks are common in article titles either, but I might be wrong about that. Either way, constantly playing musical chairs with the title isn't the best way to improve the article. StuartH (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. Wikipedia is continuously and incrementally evolving and even small improvements are for the best. Or should we accept to do nothing because something is not going to be perfect?91.153.115.15 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not a compromise suggestion, it is actually worse than before, as it actually incorporates the scare quotes into the article title. What a godawful proposal. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we're going that way, it should be "so-called climategate xxx" or "the not-climategate xxx". Scare quotes are widely misunderstood - see, for example, The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, "the manufactured controversy called climategate by those pushing it" is probably a more accurate paraphrase. Not terribly inaccurate, but not really a good article title. Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - (almost?) every occurrence of scare quotes in the contents page above is a redirect to a non-quoted name.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Make that Strong oppose, per Wikispan's reminder below that other things were dubbed "Climategate" before this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"IPad" was used years before Apple released their tablet device, but that doesn't mean that the iPad article can't be named "iPad". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Tarc. Also, would create a truly awful precedent. Frankly, I am sick and tired of this. This title is already a compromise. Wikipedia should be a shining beacon of common sense, not a cesspool of ignorance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Awful idea. Figureofnine (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as POV neologism, per WP:NOTNEO and WP:LABEL but most importantly WP:NPOV, taking into account also a failure to establish a case for an existing common name [my own research on Google news shows that over half of sources in the popular media do not even contain the word "Climategate"]. BigK HeX (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see a single example that has been provided here where a POV neologism has been taken as the acceptable "common name" within months of its inception --- pretty much every example given shows cases where the term has filtered even to textbooks. Also, I'd speculate that a precedent like this would set off a shitstorm throughout a host of articles -- [[Birther movement]], Deepwater Horizon oil spill ==> [[BP Disaster]], etc. ad nauseum. BigK HeX (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, given the persistent pushing here, the Birther movement example comes as a surprise. Haven't checked the talk page history there. . . dave souza, talk 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as worse than the existing compromise, this is clearly a neologism and is still developing news to the extent that the various claims have been rebutted, with the FOIA issue is still under examination by the ICO. I've not chipped in previously as in my opinion it's premature until we're clearer about this manufactured scandal, and unlike some promoting fringe views I've been trying to avoid this topic area, making only minor comments and corrections. Rushing at this while Arbcom is still trying to sort out the rather hurried RfAr is just disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- as a compromise, but my preference is Climategate for the reasons articulated in the last vote. Minor4th 16:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as per reasons given by Jimbo, whoever he is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I may change my mind if in 12 months time, when enough water has passed under the bridge, it is considered to be the most commonly used name. However—and this point bears repeating—Global Warming opponents had applied the name 'Climategate' to other controversies before the unauthorised leak of materials from the University of East Anglia. No doubt if all climate scientist were exposed as secret communist agents tomorrow the same name will pop up yet again. Wikispan (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support if this is another of those incremental steps in naming the article after what historians will always refer to it as. Whether the 'scandal' aspect of the -gate suffix refers to the actual acquisition/release of the emails or the fallout that resulted can remain ambiguous.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds fair, per WP:NAME. Some of those arguing against this name change might be reminded of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Most people are aware of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names, but nowhere is there built a convincing case that there exists a recognized "common name." BigK HeX (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't an argument, it's a wikipedia policy. Try to respect it while the article's on probation.

There's a fairly unkempt list of reliable sources that use the term 'climategate' here: User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_Climategate. You might also try searching google for climategate and then searching it for Climatic Research Unit email controversy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what's policy? WP:AGF. And, if you bothered to follow the discussion, I've already mentioned my own investigations into the matter. Moreover, I commented about the use of scare quotes such as those which exist throughout the example RS's provided. In any case, trying to suggest that a long list of a months-old neologism within media sources on its own (especially when even those examples are riddled with scare quotes) is supposedly a full case would be a dubious idea, at best. BigK HeX (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your invocation of scare quotes has no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline as far as I know. But if there is one, please cite it. Otherwise, you're just making up rules that don't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy is the same one that started this thread: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names

The basis is common English, specifically in this case (and merely repeating what I've already posted), that scare quotes imply contempt towards a loaded POV label and also usually imply that a name is not recognized as settled.

If the name is not settled, then Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names is irrelevant as there is no recognized "common name." BigK HeX (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? You stated above that "over half" of the sources don't mention Climategate. What do they mention? Excuse me if I don't just accept that statement at face value. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... the overwhelming number of "oppose" votes is pretty good evidence that you guys haven't built a convincing case that there exists a definitive "common name". As I've already said, even the supposedly analogous examples offered so far have been poor ["Boston Massacre", etc], since those examples are long-standing labels that have filtered even to textbooks. BigK HeX (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn' clear. I'm not asking about the !vote count, I was asking what were the other article titles you found. The reason I ask is that the overwhelming (95-98%) of the source titles I have found refer to it as Climategate, and not just on Google. Lexis news has over 800 hits for Climategate. Based on my research, that is the commonly used title by the sources. I'm asking for two reasons - 1st, if I'm wrong on what the sources are, I'll admit it; and 2nd, to make sure it isn't WP:IMADETHATUP. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've already suggested, it would likely be prudent for the supporting editors to actually set up a space and try to put together a case that involves more than a list, which by itself is largely meaningless. If you guys get that going, I'd likely be interested in participating there. BigK HeX (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK, all we are asking is that you share what titles you found to be in use. You know, like the Climategate scientists were asked to do. Not sharing it and stonewalling cost them dearly in public credibilty, and we're likely to see the same. Just give us the search terms and we can verify your claims. As it stands now, our checks indicate that your claims are insupportable, and that Climategate is the common name used by sources. You don't have to answer of course, but not answering doesn't help your argument. GregJackP Boomer! 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Scare quotes in a title? I think this is one of those compromises that would make everyone unhappy, and it really doesn't address any of the underlying issues, it's just an arbitrary point between two arbitrary positions. Gamaliel (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Gamaliel, Wikispan, etc. Trying to overturn a compromise so soon after it was reached sets a bad precedent. People will be less willing to compromise and give ground in the future if they believe the result will just be a starting point for another push. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I commented above, but I'll make my vote official now. We have a compromise - the current title. It was supported by Jimbo and other editors who are now pushing for "Climategate". '"Climategate" controversy' isn't a compromise - it's a foot in the door for when "Climategate" gets pushed again in a matter of weeks. Some have actually made that clear in their "Support" reasoning. StuartH (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See salami tactics for what's going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that seems a lot like [[Psychological projection

|projection]]. GregJackP Boomer! 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose However, "Climategate" fake scandal would be about right. (-; Seriously though, this name change would not be an improvement. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement. 'Scare quotes' shouldn't be used, per above. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Without the scare quotes, it wouldn't be a compromise at all. So you aren't actually supporting the compromise, just reiterating your original position. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Six months on "Climategate" (with the scare quotes!) is clearly the settled choice of the name in the sources, and we should be guided by that, not by personal opinions on the suitability of the name. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  "Climategate" is a pejorative created by a commenter on an anti-science blog. The scare quotes allow a lazy media to use this clearly inappropriate term, but many respectable news organs eschew this term. Scare quotes are simply not appropriate components of a Wikipedia page title. And "-gate" suffixes aren't appropriate either (despite the best efforts of agenda-driven editors to "fix" the guidelines to suit their cause). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are three big problems with this. First, we simply do not use scare quotes in articles. As others have said, this would be a horrible precedent. Second, this does not in any way get away from the main issue - the use of a pejorative POV nickname. As has been pointed out numerous times, article titles are meant to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality - that's written into WP:NPOV as a requirement. Adopting a partisan, pejorative POV nickname meant to convey the impression of wrongdoing is contrary to every principal of NPOV, especially as those involved in this affair have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Wikipedia has a long-standing approach of avoiding the use of such nicknames. Third, using scare quotes is itself an expression of POV. Scare quotes are used to express disagreement with a term. The use of scare quotes in an article title for any purpose is a violation of POV in itself, as it expresses an editorial disagreement with the term or phrase being scare-quoted. I am frankly very surprised indeed that Jimbo has suggested this, as it completely undermines the principles that he's put forward for years. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Climategate is a pejorative term and the scare quotes are a bit much. The current title seems much more neutral. AniMate 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The terms "Climategate" and "the so-called Climategate scandal" refer to the interpretation put on the episode by climate change deniers. The episode had significance for them because they wrongly believed that it would show that global warming was a hoax. The event itself would never have received as much attention had the subject matter not had the same political significance. Unfortunately no generally accepted term for the incident has developed and probably never will. TFD (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Jimbo and WP:google "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" =4,930 results, "climategate" =3,210,000 results.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adding scare quotes does little to detract from the central issue here, which is that "climategate" is a pejorative term. The current title is neutral and should remain. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No laws were broken. Scare quotes are unencyclopedic. Even the RS I would rely on (Scientific American) provided say "so-called climategate", confirming the intent is pejorative, not descriptive of gross misconduct or the breaking of laws. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support name change. I would prefer the simple Climategate, which is what most reliable sources call this. Second preference, Climategate controversy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support as it is clearly the commonly used name. Many of the arguments of those opposing just repeat the same "we don't use scare quotes" arguments which isn't based in policy and is totally not correct see:Boston Massacre. It didn't matter that only two people died we still call it a massacre because that's what it was reported as. Many other people have been producing arguments in opposition that are just blatantly wrong and shortly after demonstrably disproven like making claims the Jim never produced this suggestion despite the fact that he did earlier on this very page, or by arguing that it's not the most commonly used name or that it's only used by partisan POY climate deniers despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The final set of oppose just seems to think it's not worth it to change the name(despite the fact that we'll be back here sooner or later anyway) but hold no real qualms over the name change. There may be more votes for opposition by one-time visiting users but considering the votes in support are based on wiki policy as well as demonstrating that "climategate" is indeed the most commonly used name it is clear that should now be used as the articles title.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support — based on the sources listed in the preceding section, this move would be a fairly straightforward application of WP:UCN. That, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors on the appropriateness of the name, should be what matters. *** Crotalus *** 16:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As per ChrisO and Vecrumba above, "Climategate" is POV, and the current title is a neutral compromise. Bkalafut (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

section break

Well it appears this title shall not garner a consensus, Shall we try for just plain old climategate controversy then? mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious even to you that any title that includes "Climategate" is not going to go anywhere. Give it up - this endless relitigation of an issue that was closed some time ago is just plain disruptive. I would have thought that, from your point of view, it would be inadvisable to cause further needless disruption only a few days before an arbitration case involving you is going to be decided. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not seriously contemplating a third move proposal in less than a week, are you?? BigK HeX (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

These are the sorts of tactics that were seen in the Obama-related articles a year ago, which necessitated some lengthy topic bans. Hopefully the pending ArbCom case on this topic will respond the same, as threatening yet another RfC on the heels of this one is pure disruption. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes heaven forbid we actually follow policy and use the same name the sources use. I have yet to see a reason within policy which says this name can`t be used. And the POV pushers are those who remove the term from article content, also against policy mark nutley (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus did not side with you on two recent proposals, and so your solution is to push for a third? I think there's a word for that...

In any case, I'm pretty sure at this point enough nerves have been grated that an RfC for a third move will be followed pretty quickly by an RfC for User Conduct citing disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea what your on about, my one proposal is still ongoing up above. This compromise was Jimbo`s idea not mine, i am not doing a third RFC s this one is still running mark nutley (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to attempt that defense if an RFC/USER is started, but I (and I'm sure many others) would consider each of these issues brought to a !vote, as a separate request for comment. By my count, there have been two already. Personally, I'd consider it pretty blatantly disruptive for anyone to start a third on the heels of the last two. BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until after ArbCom announces its proposed decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - too normaitve. Racepacket (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to iVote as an uninvolved editor but it appears the goal posts keep changing here, so I will not add to this mess other than to comment that when an RFC is set up please finish one before moving on to the next one. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Watergate was nearly 40 years ago, and just because segments of the media are too stupid to get over the very tired meme of foogate does not mean we need to follow suit. The current name is fine. Resolute 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Since Watergate, every controversy gets dubbed by lazy journalists X-gate. The article should remain at this location. However there is no reason why Climategate should not exist as a redirect, since it is a possible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Biased title, which implies that something "dirty" happened, to the uninformed reader, due to common usage of "-Gate" in media. Some reliable sources use it, but many don't. I don't see any reason to pick a loaded title from one side, as the name of the article. There is nothing wrong with the current title, which is totally neutral, anyway. See Neutral point of view#Article naming, which says: A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality ... proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. The term "Climategate" is clearly not used by a consensus of sources, and is non-neutral, so according to policy, we shouldn't use it. I would, however, support redirecting alternative suggestions such "Climategate" controversy, etc. to the current article, since many reliable sources do use it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't think we can continue to keep out heads in the sand eternally. Although I do agree that Climategate is not a neutral term, neither is Watergate. Even pro-anthropogenic climate change media now apply this term. Resistance is futile. Still, I have no objection to the " 'Climatagate' controversy" variant. __meco (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy based reasons for not using Climategate

I see plenty of reasons within policy to use the term climatgate for this article, but have not seen any actual policy based reasons for it`s exclusion. Lets see the arguments within policy against using what the sources use please mark nutley (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been adressed about a million times. The word "Climategate" is not used by a consensus of the sources. When used, it is nearly always placed in "scare quotes" to "indicate that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase itself) ... or that the writer feels it is a misnomer." Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: This 'scare quotes' objection has absolutely no basis in any policy or guideline that I am aware of. Can you please point us to which policy or guideline says that we should use the most common name except when sometimes used in quotes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say what you say I said. I said what I said, no more, no less. "The word "Climategate" is not used by a consensus of the sources." Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so what are they using then? mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of turns of phrase. How is that relevent? When there's no consensus of the sources for proper names for events which incorporate non-neutral terms , we instead use a descriptive title, like the one we reached a compromise on the last time we had this little back-and-forth. With that, I consider this section closed, and will not respond again. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So none then, there are no other phrases being used other than climategate, so there is in fact a consensus of sources over the name, thanks for agreeing mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that's not what I said - please don't put words into my mouth. I said there were lots of other constructs. Imagine, as a hypothetical, that we asked 10 grade-school children what we should have for lunch, and got the following reponses - "Pizza, Burgers, Spagetti, Cheese, Apples, Spagetti, Duck, Cherries, Steak, Foie Gras." Would you argue that there is a consensus for Spagetti? (Would you further argue that we are in France?) Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Which term is used more often? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Plurality does not mean Consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hip, it`s quite simple really. You say climategate is not the most commonly used term for this controversy. So please tell me what is the most common name? As all the sources i ee use climategate, which means a consensus of sources using it mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said what you say I said. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"The word "Climategate" is not used by a consensus of the sources." is what you have said, now all the sources i look at use climategate, you say this is not the case, therefore you have seen the use of another term which is used as much, what is it? mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You have confused plurality and consensus. That more sources use Climategate than any other term individually, which I accept arguendo does not mean that all sources have reach a consensus on the term. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well what else is being used then? Please give an example of another source using a different term. If you can`t then there is an obvious consensus of sources mark nutley (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that does not use "climategate" at all but does discuss the controversy: [29]. Another one: [30]. Another one: [31]. Another one: [32]. Another one: [33]. I could keep going - but all I did was progoogle "climate research unit" -climategate. So now we've progoogled at eachother. Can we move on? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell no, i just tried that "climate research unit" -climategate 25 hits. "climategate" 517 hits. I think the weight is on climategate mate definatly a consensus of sources, cheers mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You have again confused consensus, this time with majority. I dispute the accuracy of your googling, and this really is my last response. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you look up consensus in your dictionary, sorry to see you quit on me, but a lot of folks do that when they know they are wrong. Ok we have a consensus of sources calling it climategate, what next? BK you were asked a question below, how about you provide a repl :) mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that Googling sucks. Really the matter is already settled, so I see no need to humor this tendentiousness either. BigK HeX (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "progoogle" means, but I know Hipocrite has 1. cherry-picked articles and 2. confused a source with an individual article in that source. Let's take her/his links one by one:

• 49--About global warming, not Climategate. The same source has numerous articles that use the word "Climategate." Here's one.
• 50--The title is "EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science," and the reference to Climategate (See in small letters immediately below.) is as one of four claims the article aims to debunk. The same source has another article titled Climategate--The CRUtape Letters.

Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data. Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

• 51--The Guardian is a major RS on Climategate.
• 52--This is a subscriber-only story about the IPCC's 2007 report. We all know the Wall St. Journal uses the word "Climategate"!
• 52--This story is about global warming. The Guelph Mercury had two stories on July 7 about Climategate and one on July 14. --Yopienso (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Policy-based reasons are generally given above when a person enters their oppose point-of-view, many citing WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEO, etc...in general words if not always citing our favorite wiki-acronyms. No one is obligated to make some sort of meta-argument within this section to explain their RfC point of view to your satisfaction, when their justification can clearly be read above. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So Tarq contends the arguments used against the name change are WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEO. Seeing as how both of these appear easy enough to refute(and as it's 1am where I'm at) I'm just going to go to bed and let someone else deal with this contention.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll first point out that several policy-based explanations have already been given, numerous times. The most important of these in my mind is that there is no consensus amongst reliable sources in the use of this term. However, more importantly, the vast majority of people here are opposed to the change and see the current title of the article as more neutral. If there is no rule that prevents this sort of thing from being done (although there is, in this case), then that's a problem with the rules. When the rules violate the consensus of an overwhelming majority of editors, I think the rules should change. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been no policy-based explanations that aren't based on a misinterpretation of the policy. AFAIK, the only valid policy-based rationale I can think of is WP:IAR, which ironically, no one has mentioned this time around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There have most certainly been policy-based explanations given. And your disagreement with those rationales hardly makes them "misrepresentations." BigK HeX (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Show me one policy-based rationale that you think is valid and I'll debunk it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you try the one I used as an example:

There is no consensus among reliable sources on using this loaded, non-neutral title, so why should we choose one that is clearly not neutral, instead of a more neutral one? Neutral point of view#Article naming says:

A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality ... proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.

This is clearly not used by a consensus of sources, and is non-neutral, so according to policy, we shouldn't use it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But it clearly is used by a consensus of the sources. There's mountains of evidence here.[34] Got anything else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You strike me as being intelligent enough to realize the fallacy in your argumentation here. Granted, you spent time on your findings, which I personally appreciate. However, you seek to show us that you have an answer for the large question of what is considered to be "consensus" among sources, however, there is currently only an incomplete case presented and thus, the argument has been left uncompelling. Consequently, I find WP:NPOV to be overriding. Though you do have the beginnings of a potentially persuasive argument, I do not accept that you "debunk" the case for WP:NPOV. BigK HeX (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I realize this but the solution is extremely simple: Provide a counter-list of sources which don't use this term. Hipocrite has already tried this[35] and his list was quickly debunked by Yopienso.[36] Got anything new? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out: [37][38]. Note by the way, that you can't claim that because one or more authors from the New York Times use the term, that every author from the New York Times agrees with the term, which is the assumption that Yopienso's "debunking" seems to be heavily based on. If you have 100 article that use the term and 100 that don't, you can't just pick one of the 100 that do, and say "See they use the term in this other article in the Times, by a different author, so examples from the New York Times don't count..."-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you knock yourself out. That's just a starting point for creating a list. Google News indexes many web sites that fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability such as OpEdNews, WikiNews, and ConspiracyPlanet.com, and nor does Google distinguish between straight news articles and opinion pieces. But taking a quick glance at the search results, I can see what your biggest problem is going to be. Most of those articles seem to be dated very early on in the scandal before "Climategate" caught on. In fact, the first 6 hits are dated Nov 21, 2009, Nov 22, 2009, 23 Nov 2009, 11/22/2009, November 23, 2009, November 22, 2009. But go ahead and prepare your list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the dates, just select stories from after whatever time you wish to arbitrarily declare "When ClimateGate caught on". Here are all the stories from 2010 on: [39]. In purposely cherrypicking non-reliable sources from the Google News results, to "rebut" my argument, you are using the same fallacy that others have used when they said "Look every source that I cherrypicked to make this list uses the term ClimateGate, so obviously there is a consensus..." I came here from an RfC and don't intend to waste my time compiling a list for you, but you can see from the first page alone of results that BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News, Reuters, CBC, Times of India have new articles that don't use the term. It should be obvious to you that these are the types of sources that I was referring you to in the list, not to ConspiracyPlanet (as you were aware when you chose this example). If you or someone else who cares more about this feels like going through and making a list, it's right there in front of you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making was the each hit has to be carefully vetted. Just handing someone a list of Google search results without bothering to do all the legwork is not helpful. Virtually every major news agency is calling this "Climategate" including the six you just named: BBC,[40] Sydney Morning Herald,[41] ABC News,[42], Reuters,[43] CBC,[44] and Times of India.[45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated above, I don't think it makes sense to look at it by publication, instead of by article. You could also make the claim that each of those newspapers have articles that DON'T use the term. What's important though, is that there is definitely not a consensus amongst the articles out there as far as terminology (as you can see from the results I gave you), and thus, there is no reason to pick a non-neutral term. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple publications have used this term multiple times. When I compiled by list, I only stopped at one article because I didn't thought it was already overkill - so there was absolutely no cherry-picking going on. As someone who's followed this topic for 9 months, the fact that Climategate has reach consensus is pretty obvious. The only reason why such a list was ever created was because we have activist editors (not talking about you) who are using Wikipedia as a platform for WP:ADVOCACY. I ask that you do you're own research instead of insisting that you're right while simultaneously refusing to do the legwork. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, your argument holds equally well for the other direction as well. Why is it that if a publication does use the term several times, then we can use that as evidence supporting using the term, but then if that same publication also chooses not to use the term in several other articles, that we can't use those in support of the fact that there is not consensus? I am not denying that the publications I listed have used the term "Climategate". What I am arguing is that they are by no means even close to using it consistently or significantly (if at all) more often than other terms. Different authors choose different terms, and the use of the term is by no measure used by a consensus of these authors. As far as me compiling a list, I already said that I'm not up to dedicating the time to doing so. I've provided a quick search that demonstrates hundreds of reliable sources that don't use it. I am aware that you are unwilling to accept the results I gave you -- after all, you started out this conversation with "Give me something so I can debunk it", rather than just asking to hear what other people have to say. Obviously, someone who starts out with the goal of arguing with other people to prove them wrong is not going to be willing to accept any evidence that is presented to them as valid. It's pretty clear from the list I provided, that not all reliable sources use the term. I won't play Wiki-games with you and copy and paste hundreds of links from that list, which you could easily browse for yourself. If some more interested party comes along and wishes to do so, so be it. If you wish to set aside your goal of "debunking" peoples arguments , and focus on figuring out what the appropriate choice of title is (rather than assuming you already know the right choice, and are going to "debunk" anyone who disagrees with you), then perhaps you could go through and generate such a list. I don't care. I intended for this to be brief, and got sucked into this ... I should have left a long time ago. Which is what I'm going to do now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to convey precisely the same idea as User:Jrtayloriv. Thanks for saving me the typing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my points were lost upon you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They weren't lost on me. They were refuted by me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to close

• Support -- As this has gone on for a month now, and a majority of people oppose the move, can we go ahead and close this now? The conversation seems to be going nowhere. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move to close, Strongly support move to do away with the clumsy evasiveness of "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" and just call it what everyone else in the English-speaking world does: Climategate. That title preferred by the warmist apparatchiki of Wikipedia is an obliteration of the fact that the "FOIA.zip" archive leaked to the 'Net consisted of a great deal more than just the emails of the C.R.U. correspondents. The preponderance of that file was made up of computer climate modeling code and datasets that had been denied by the C.R.U. officers in evasion of requests posed under the U.K.'s freedom of information act. Kinda why the archive was titled "FOIA.zip," after all. Tucci78 (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes "everyone" uses the term except for the hundreds of reliable sources we've found which don't use it. Let's choose a non-neutral title that isn't used by a consensus of sources so that we aren't accused of working with the "warmist apparatchiki of Wikipedia" ... Actually, on second thought, let's just do what WP:NPOV suggests and choose a neutral title. I'm sorry you believe there is a vast conspiracy amongst a cabal of the world's climatologists (by "cabal", I mean almost all of them). But that has nothing to do with the name of this article. We don't have a consensus of sources that use this term, and it is not neutral. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for article naming laid out in WP:NPOV.

But more importantly, this has all been repeated dozens of times above -- those worried about the domination of Wikipedia by the "warmist apparatchiki" are repeating themselves, and those concerned about following WP:NPOV are just repeating themselves. This conversation is going nowhere, and has been for over a month now. There is clearly not a consensus for the move (in fact, a majority oppose it, for good reason). So instead of wasting everyone's time, on a conversation that obviously nobody is bothering to respond to anymore, I'd recommend we just close the discussion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Most editors have opposed the move, and this has been inactive for well over a month. It is time to declare this proposal officially dead. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support as an obviously dead topic. Heck, most of the more zealous participants can't even respond any longer. Someone flag down a neutral editor to close... BigK HeX (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.